The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius, talk.philosophy.misc, talk.origins, alt.atheism, alt.christnet, alt.activism, alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich, alt.president.clinton, alt.politics.correct, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.renewing.american.civilization
From: Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net>
Date: 1997/03/30
Subject: Re: Announcement -- New Creation Science FAQ
gladys wrote: Really. Perhaps you should explain to all those cosmologists and > One cannot work out the origin of the universe. astronomers out there that they are wasting their time . . . > > It sounds like you are saying that true creationism is a conclusion How about (1) there is no scientificically valid data or evidence at > > after looking at all the physical evidence--NOT the mere recitation > > of the answer in a book, in a myth, or in a legend. > You heard me exactly right. Is there any objection to this statement? all to support creationism---not one single solitary shred, (2) in general, creationist "research" consists solely of quote-mining and speech-making, none of which contains any scientific data for creation, and (3) no creationist, alive or dead, has ever put forth any scientific theory of creation that was not based directly on divine revelation or religious faith. If you have a scientific theory of creation to present, please present ===================================================== Check out my herp photos: You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||